Authorised officer must independently assess land nature as on 12.08.2008, consider KSREC report, and issue speaking order for Form-5 exclusion from Paddy Land Data Bank.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and quashing the rejection order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s Form- 5 application;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider Exhibit P3 Form-5 application afresh, strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the KSREC report (Exhibit P6) and the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii. Declare that the petitioner’s property is comprised in Sy. No. 860/1-1, Kadavallur Village, Kunnamkulam Taluk, Thrissur District, is not a paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and is therefore liable to be removed from the Paddy Land Data Bank;

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to remove the petitioner’s property from the Paddy Land Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008;

v. To dispense with the production of translated vernacular documents.

vi. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting Ext.P3 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised officer based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Even though, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. There is no independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date by the authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not considered whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.

5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.

Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that the competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order can be set aside.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is passed after inspecting the property. But, a perusal of the impugned order itself would show that the inspection is conducted by the officers attached to the office of the authorised officer not directly by the authorised officer.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P8 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent / authorised o to reconsider Ext.P3 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the